Deseret National Bank v. Kidman
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the Eirst District Court, Cache County. — Hon. Charles H. Hart, Judge. Action of replevin. The lower court, on the grounds that the affidavit and acknowledgment of tbe chattel mortgage on the sheep were not in accordance with the law of Idaho and that the mortgage was not sufficient to charge defendants with notice of its existence, instructed the jury to return ¿ verdict for the defendants. Erom such judgment, the plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBaskin, C. J.
This is an action of replevin. The answer denies the plaintiff’s alleged right to the possession of about 100 head of sheep claimed from defendants, and alleges that the defendants are the owners of, and entitled to the possession of, the same. A jury being impaneled in the ease, the plaintiff placed Orson Rumel upon the witness stand, and he testified as follows: “I know the signature of Earnest A. Purnell. Have seen him write his name several times. I saw him write his name to the promissory note.” And! after identifying the note as the one set out in the mortgage, he further testified…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Christensen v. HollingsworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Carpenter v. DexterSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Hoffman, Burneston & Co. v. MackallOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Kelly v. CalhounSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Warder v. HenrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Puget Sound Pulp & Timber Co. v. Clear Lake Cedar Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
- The Nan B.District Court, D. Alaska · 1948
- Tenney Co. v. ThomasNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
- Latenser v. SchiedSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928